heretyk@abnjh.UUCP (S. Heretyk) (08/10/83)
"We don't need a net.misogny - what do you think net.women is FOR?" Obviously you think that persons should express their hatred of women (which those titles are indicative of) in net.women. Most would be appalled at such titles in reference to other oppressed groups. Once a critical conscience is developed it is easy to see that those titles are not designed to grab your attention but are designed to make the webb more dense. Shelley Heretyk
ginger@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ginger Grover) (08/11/83)
Obviously you think that persons should express their hatred of women (which those titles are indicative of) in net.women. You apparently missed the :-) , which means "I'm joking". I very much doubt that there are all that many true misogynists on the net; any anti-women articles usually get shouted down, anyway. Just because we are discussing important issues doesn't mean we have to be grim and humorless. By the same token, issues that may *seem* comparatively unimportant should not necessarily be treated frivolously -The Great Toilet Seat Conspiracy lifts the lid on a real problem! Ginger Grover ssc-vax!ginger
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (11/13/84)
> The main point of this posting is to comment on (flame > about) Morley Safer's editorial commentary.... > > Well maybe this problem isn't large numerically, > but the underlying hatred of women that it shows so dramati- > cally is a worldwide problem--and the USA is far from > exempt. > -- > Richard Mateosian > {amd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA Actually, the problem is far greater than Richard has pointed out. Some of you may think this is stretching it, but I believe that if we continue with our male dominated world which so thoroughly invalidates the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, then we can count on the end of civilization as we know it, because the men are determined to nuke us back into the stone age just to prove that their weapons are bigger than their competitions is. If we don't ALL start loving ALL our brothers&sisters on this planet, we're gonna ALL lose big. Reagan in 84, war in 85. (flames to net.politics). Hey, folks, we've only got one world, and it's pretty fragile. We've only got one race, the human race. If you hate/burn/torture/rape/plunder/pillage anyone and rationalize it as being ok because the victim is of another sex/race/religion/operating system/programming language/persuasion, then you've got your head thoroughly wedged ... oh, this isn't net.flame. (well, I don't read net.flame, despite the cross posting). HERE's the BEEF: Now that Richard has brought up the subject of misogyny, I'd like to open up a sub-discussion about misogyny, which ignores the specific case Richard brought up, and to which I sparked(no flames yet) above. Specifically: regardless of whether you personally hate or distrust women, why do you think people in general do so (what a clever way for you to disquise your own opinion, and blame it on someone else, no?). I mean, (lapsing back to Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, only Witches. Why is it that (some) men have this fear of women? (psychologically, of course, we all know that everyone fears the unknown, that fear turns to anger and hatred: thus fear is the root problem). HERE's the KINDLING: For all those tempted to flame, allow me to provide the kindling: Let us presume that we are talking about those men who fear women in general, and let us also presume that we've excluded those who fear women because of childhood traumas involving women (mom,sis,aunt,etc), and are referring to those who's fear has matured into misogyny... What is the basis for that fear? Especially given the overall societal flavor of men dominating women, and therefore having less to fear... UNLESS! that fear of women, and that need to be in the dominant position, (no, not sexually ( well, I didn't intend that interpretation)), stems from a basic insecurity born of deep seated feelings of inferiority, which itself may come from "womb envy" (sort of anti-freudian, no? (let's see, cross post this to net.psych?) or from ... ??? <<----HERE IT IS! THE QUESTION! If it isn't from some flavor of inferiority complex, then what? <<---QUESTION2 Send all the flames you like to net.flame... I don't read it. Send any theories right back? I take these questions seriously. :-) -- mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF EOF
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (11/14/84)
> the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, > then we can count on the end of civilization as we know it, because the Are you saying that burning Indian women to death constitutes "eastern/ feminine" values? If not, what does? Chinese foot-binding? Japanese geishas? Female infanticide, as in both China and India? At least western/masculine culture incorporates the idea (not always realized) of equal rights and justice. And the idea that social change is both necessary and possible! > Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, > only Witches. Why is it that (some) men have this fear of women? Nobody was burned in Salem--the victims were hanged. At least one man was killed too, by being crushed to death as a form of torture because he refused to enter a plea (of guilty or not guilty) at his trial. Ponder, though, the fact that all of the victims' accusers were women.....
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/14/84)
> = Sunny > Some of you may think this is stretching it, but I believe that if we > continue with our male dominated world which so thoroughly invalidates > the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, > then we can count on the end of civilization as we know it, because the > men are determined to nuke us back into the stone age just to prove that > their weapons are bigger than their competitions is. Yes, some of us do think that this is stretching it. I too am concerned about the arms race, but to blame the whole thing on men in general is going a little far. ( I mean, I never nuked anyone, nor do I want to, even though I'm one of those *AWFUL* men. :-)) > regardless of whether you personally hate or distrust women, why do you think > people in general do so (what a clever way for you to disquise your own > opinion, and blame it on someone else, no?). People in general hate women? I guess you must mean men in general hate women, right? I'm very sorry for you, Sunny, if the men whom you have met have led you to believe this. Yes, women are brutalized and victimized even today, even in our own society, and it is men who do this. But one whole helluvva lot of love is also going on out there, most of it between men and women. To forget about that, and to say that men in general hate women is inaccurate. What motivates the rapists and the wife beaters? I dunno. Maybe these INDIVIDUALS hate women. Maybe they have other motives. If you think that finding out their motives is important, and that this may help solve these problems, I agree with you. But let's not end the search for these motives with the false assertion that men in general hate women. I mean, some of my best friends are women. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/14/84)
> Actually, the problem is far greater than Richard has pointed out. > Some of you may think this is stretching it, but I believe that if we > continue with our male dominated world which so thoroughly invalidates > the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, > then we can count on the end of civilization as we know it, because the > men are determined to nuke us back into the stone age just to prove that > their weapons are bigger than their competitions is. If we don't ALL > start loving ALL our brothers&sisters on this planet, we're gonna ALL > lose big. Reagan in 84, war in 85. (flames to net.politics). Hey, > folks, we've only got one world, and it's pretty fragile. We've only > got one race, the human race. If you hate/burn/torture/rape/plunder/pillage > anyone and rationalize it as being ok because the victim is of another > sex/race/religion/operating system/programming language/persuasion, then > you've got your head thoroughly wedged ... oh, this isn't net.flame. > (well, I don't read net.flame, despite the cross posting). All men want to destroy the world, and all women want peace, right? I've always suspected that there was some difference... What drivel some people are capable of. > Now that Richard has brought up the subject of misogyny, I'd like > to open up a sub-discussion about misogyny, which ignores the specific case > Richard brought up, and to which I sparked(no flames yet) above. Specifically: > regardless of whether you personally hate or distrust women, why do you think > people in general do so (what a clever way for you to disquise your own > opinion, and blame it on someone else, no?). I mean, (lapsing back to > Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, > only Witches. Why is it that (some) men have this fear of women? > (psychologically, of course, we all know that everyone fears the unknown, > that fear turns to anger and hatred: thus fear is the root problem). I don't think that people IN GENERAL hate or distrust women... Some people do, but if you think that this is a basic part of male psychology you must have some serious problems yourself. > For all those tempted to flame, allow me to provide the kindling: > Let us presume that we are talking about those men who fear women in general, > and let us also presume that we've excluded those who fear women because of > childhood traumas involving women (mom,sis,aunt,etc), and are referring to > those who's fear has matured into misogyny... Of course, there are no men who DON'T fear women. I find it very hard to take seriously people who make such sweeping and self-righteous generalizations. Wayne
chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot) (11/14/84)
Sunny == >
> ... I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, only Witches.
Actually, there were men accused of witchcraft back then. Some were imprisoned,
and one was pressed to death while he refused to speak in his own defense (I've
forgotten his name and the details of his case that made both confessing and
denying unchoosable options).
But I agree with Sunny's essential message.
Madonna Kolbenschlag (_Kiss_Sleeping_Beauty_Good-Bye_) also speaks of "a tradi-
tional male paranoia about women in groups" and its occasional eruption into
"sadistic vengeance in purging 'witches' and other harbingers of female energy."
This paranoia is more than misogyny: it's a fear about the subordinates rising
up and disrupting the existing order--subordinates including women and racial
and religious minorities. The execution of witches rings to me of the Cain and
Abel clash, with its parallels in a perceived irreconcilable difference in
viewing one's relation to nature...this clash has been shivering us for a long
time...
L S Chabot
UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
shadow: [ISSN 0018-9162 v17 #10 p7, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/15/84)
[] [Sunny] > Actually, the problem is far greater than Richard has pointed out. >Some of you may think this is stretching it, but I believe that if we >continue with our male dominated world which so thoroughly invalidates >the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, Not to quarrel with your values, BUT.... I'm tired of hearing about eastern/feminine values. I'm a great admirer of many aspects of various Asian cultures, but stop and remember what started this debate to begin with. This eastern/feminine bit is simplistic crap which started as a western put-down of Asia and since has become (ironically) enshrined as a bit of counter-culture propaganda for Asia. How "feminine" were the samurai? the armies of imperial China? I can't believe that credulous nonsense about other people's cultures helps us face our own problems. (BTW: Do you know what geographic region contained the most widespread worship of the Great Mother in historical times? Not that it was a particularly gentle sect.) > I mean, (lapsing back to >Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, >only Witches. Why is it that (some) men have this fear of women? Actually, I don't recall hearing about *any* witches being burned in Salem. They were hung (humane after all :-) ). Now for a particularly sad bit of history involving our devout pilgrim forbears. There was one man accused of witchcraft in Salem. Realizing that to participate in a trial would not save his life, only cause his farm to be passed to the state instead of his children, he refused to say a word after his arrest. This prevented a trial. He was executed by being crushed beneath a pile of stones placed on him one by one ( in order to give him time to confess to being a witch). In answer to your question. Beats the hell out of me. If we have to answer such questions in order to solve our problems then we're all in trouble. Maybe we are. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (11/15/84)
<Burning bugs for failure to eat bugeater lines> | I mean, (lapsing back to Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of | them burning Warlocks in Salem, only Witches. | - Sunny Kirsten Sorry.. They NEVER burned anyone in Salem. They HUNG a number of people. The victims were both men and women. The primary accusers were teenage girls. And, incidentally, Cotton Mather had little to do with it. Most of the slur on his name was generated by a personal rival who had a wider readership. Encyclopedia Brittannica has an excellent analysis of both Mather and the Salem witch trials. Incidentally, burnings DID take place through most of Europe, and men and women alike were burned there too. There are enough cases of misogyny without having to invent new ones. Hutch
slf@teddy.UUCP (Scott Fisher) (11/15/84)
> Actually, the problem is far greater than Richard has pointed out. > Some of you may think this is stretching it, but I believe that if we > continue with our male dominated world which so thoroughly invalidates > the eastern/feminine values in favor of the western/masculine values, > then we can count on the end of civilization as we know it, because the > men are determined to nuke us back into the stone age just to prove that > their weapons are bigger than their competitions is. ... > ... I mean, (lapsing back to > Richard's example) I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, > only Witches. Why is it that (some) men have this fear of women? > (psychologically, of course, we all know that everyone fears the unknown, > that fear turns to anger and hatred: thus fear is the root problem). Kinda sounds to me like she has a fear of men! "men are determined to nuke us back into the stone age"? Give me a break!
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/16/84)
>Madonna Kolbenschlag (_Kiss_Sleeping_Beauty_Good-Bye_) also speaks of "a tradi- >tional male paranoia about women in groups" and its occasional eruption into >"sadistic vengeance in purging 'witches' and other harbingers of female energy." >This paranoia is more than misogyny: it's a fear about the subordinates rising >up and disrupting the existing order--subordinates including women and racial >and religious minorities. The execution of witches rings to me of the Cain and >Abel clash, with its parallels in a perceived irreconcilable difference in >viewing one's relation to nature...this clash has been shivering us for a long >time... What is this traditional fear of women associating in groups? In the oriental society from which I come women are only supposed to associate with women in groups. A women who kept to herself would be considered strange. A women who associated with men would be risking a flogging. The groups of women were the main supporters and reinforcers of such behavior among women. In most society's minority members were always expected to assoicate mainly with other members of their minority. A minority individual who tried to associate only with members of the majority would be suspected of being up to something by members of the majority.
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/16/84)
<> Sunny dear, it's time to come in now....I think you've been in the trenches too long. I wonder if there are any women working on Defense .....naw... only men would do that, right, sunny???? Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
mab@daedalus.ARPA (Matt Bishop) (11/20/84)
Sunny == >> Lisa == > >> ... I don't recall hearing of them burning Warlocks in Salem, only Witches. >Actually, there were men accused of witchcraft back then. Some were imprisoned, >and one was pressed to death while he refused to speak in his own defense (I've >forgotten his name and the details of his case that made both confessing and >denying unchoosable options). The man was Giles Corey. He was probably pressed to death because he refused to plead guilty or not guilty. In those days, the law required the accused to plead guilty or not guilty. The trial could not proceed unless he pled. If the accused stood mute, he would be pressed to death. The reason people in general stood mute was simple: if you pled guilty, or were convicted, of a felony (and witchcraft WAS a felony), your property was forfeit and your family was left destitute. A lot of people chose not to plead because they figured they'd be convicted and sentenced to death anyway, and decided to try to protect their families. -- Peace, +---------------------------------------------+ Matt Bishop | Don't look back -- they might be gaining!!! | [mab@riacs.ARPA] +---------------------------------------------+
rlw@wxlvax.UUCP (Richard L. Wexelblat) (11/28/84)
NO ONE was burned in Salem. Several were hanged, pressed, stoned, or beaten to death. Witches were both male and female. The ratio was, however, about 4 (female) to one (male) accused. All men accused and most of the women accused were found guilty. I don't remember how many actually died or were killed.
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (11/30/84)
>I don't remember how many actually died or were killed.
From "how New England Happened" by Christina Tree:
Found guilty and hanged : 14 women, 5 men [do pedants say 'pendent'?]
Pressed to death for refusing to enter a plea : 1 man
Pleaded guilty, therefore reprieved : 55 (sexes unspecified)
Awaiting trial : about 150.
Tree points out that the special courts, originally ordered by Governor Phips,
were eventually cancelled by him around the time that his wife's name came up.
Not quite irrelevantly, there were two witchcraft trials in Plymouth Colony,
(as opposed to Massachusetts Bay) and both (female) defendants were found not
guilty. In fact, in one case, the woman who brought the accusation ended up
getting tried for slander.